While Australia seems to have been immune to the worst of the global financial pandemic, it would seem that our relative prosperity has also inoculated us against some of the most radical social and political thinking taking place in the UK and Europe. But where is this new thinking coming from? For today's guests, it is the Christian social vision that represents a genuine 'third way' over against the bankrupt politics of the left and the right, beyond the welfare state and the supposedly unbridled free market..

Credits

Comments (12)

John Robertson :

Thank you for this excellent program on a subject meriting the title "Big Ideas".

The participants were clearer on what they saw as wrong than on what to do about it.

I'd like to put a contrary view; namely that things today, although not perfect, have gone marvellously well overall.

Since 1900 world population has risen by 4.4 fold, food production by 5 fold and average life expectancy at birth from about 30 years in 1900 to 67 years now. The price of food in real terms has fallen greatly. We must be doing something very right!

(In my opinion one very right thing is increasing CO2 which helps us grow all that extra food.)

Technology now allows most Australians each to have a level of communication which a multi-billionaire could not have had just 25 years ago - however much he was prepared to pay. We see the massive effects this has had in deposing tyrants among many other good results. It has been cooperation in spades.

Hundreds of millions in China, let alone in more developed countries, now have this facility also.

Google has transformed access to knowledge and has put something far, far better than the Britannica in the hands of almost everyone. Library access to the Internet plays an important part here.

GPS has changed the face of navigation for the better, totally and for all time.

And so it keeps getting better and better. My 80 year old instinct is that technology plus the innate good sense and good will of most people holds the answer for our ever improving future.

Herman :

01 May 2012 2:06:01pm

I found this a very interesting program. I think it offers the hope of a vision beyond the nauseating triumph of neo-liberalism, which, whilst being good for the well-off and rich, is derogatory, denigrating, and terrible for the poor (or 'new poor').

Whilst John Robertson (comments) may find that life at his age is just getting better and better, may I point out that his comments do not reflect an understanding of people that have been negatively affected by either disability within working age and/or the negative effects on many since the economic restructure from the mid 1970s.

For these people now, life is poor and getting worse. Materially it is passable, but we live in a comparative society, not an absolute one, and this governs how people feel and their level of wellbeing.

Too many people in the economy we live in now are not living very good lives, for all sorts of reasons, and it is not all their own 'fault' (if such a reasoning structure exists). The ever widening gap between the rich and poor in Australia is disgraceful, and something that needs pressing and immediate attention by political parties, government, and the Christian Church.

At least the Christian Church has been better than average at understanding this, but to be successful in its aims, it must be bolder than it has so far, and not scared of treading on toes which support it. This is the meaning of tenacity, this is the meaning of action. This is what the rising tide of the under-class needs to realise its aims.

Gaile Hartridge :

02 May 2012 1:47:04pm

“The participants were clearer on what they saw as wrong than on what to do about it. “One would imagine this would ring alarm bells if the church is deemed to be the light of the world. Something has to occur for the New Order to be ushered in. The Lord Jesus Christ is not going to just turn up and 'set the mess that we have made 'right'.We were meant to co create and restore earth to its original state. Needless to say, we are not there yet.There may be many technological advances but as far as happiness and goodwill to all on the face of the earth, we need a massive turnaround to set things right.Did we imagine we were to do this is our own efforts that God does not participate in the mission plan. He participates, and not in a half hearted way from afar. Where are the willing servants and workers to bring about the change that is necessary to affect a new landscape? We are in a process of conditioning change, readiness for this to take place. It may sound like a new theology that involves all. “It is how the undercurrent stream forms”"There are those who stifle the flow"It is the whereabouts and knowabouts of how to unpack the goods:The Lion of Judah "The aim of the LORD is how to raise attention without suspicion"A little airbrushing of the "saline beast"It's just a jump to the left, a jump to the right, the nature of right and wrong.Or so the unknowable God impressed upon my mind last nightBut what would He know?Well actually, if I am wrong, I shall be admonished for my in discretionary behaviour forth with, but God is not the one I am concerned about. The loving jurisdiction of His guiding Hand keeps me on track. “Have you been commissioned”?

John :

27 Apr 2012 12:45:58pm

Applied Christian politics 101

www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

After all of that or 1700 years of Christian institutional violence, including Bush's "crusade" against Iraq (because "God" told him too) Christianity is supposed to be the "solution" to the very real crisis in Civilization.

Oh puleez!

And look at the so called religion promoted by the various candidates in the recent USA GOP primaries.Pure unadulterated psychosis!

Remember too that many/most of those on the right side of the culture wars are fully paid up subscribers/advocates of the simultaneous whatever-it-takes-to-get-rid-of-Obama project.

Martin Snigg :

29 Apr 2012 3:32:30pm

Excellent program. Thanks to Scott Stephens for his organisation. Would love to hear more on what seems a truly progressive political economy.

Prof. Milbank is extremely learned and could listen to many more programs from him and his ilk. One criticism though, re: neo-scholasticism. James Chastek has some thoughts and Edward Feser too. Ultimately I think it is a prejudice repeated too often.

"Notice that in science, we insist on teaching theories that have been disproved (Newtonian or Classical physics) simply because they are the clearest and best introduction to what science is. When we actually believe in the objective character of something, we insist on giving all students a single, coherent, standardized foundation, quite apart from all the various theories that come later- which is exactly what we don’t do in theology.'http://thomism.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/if-you-dont-like-scholasticism-dont-study-it/#comments

I don't think these men can be gainsaid and it seems to me there is a huge thirst for serious introductory theology among the people. And we need not just historical theology but traditional metaphysics too - why is it systematically kept from people?

Natural theology for the Religion and Ethics site would be marvellous. It would segue nicely into why we need to focus on social wholes and integral humanism rather than persist in a voluntaristic metaphysics of the 'market-state' settlement.

Gaile Hartridge :

01 May 2012 9:19:04pm

This is the road ahead. Depending on what we mean by traditional metaphysics. I think we would need to seriously update our concepts of a metaphysical God. Perhaps this could be the next discussion. We cannot instigate any of the ideas in our own strength. It is a war of ideology that we are fast losing. Sorry, but someone had to say it and it has to start somewhere along with a thirst for God. We should strike while the iron is hot and the world hungers for something more. The conditions are right. The tables can be turned. Why are we so afraid to say it? "Why is it systematically kept from people?Is the question we should be asking?Where is the boldness and confidence, where is the metaphysical Christ in the conversation?

Davo :

30 Apr 2012 8:47:45pm

Very interesting program. Anything on the topic of moving beyond left and right grabs my attention.

The show moved very fast and made only passing reference to some things that sounded interesting. I'd be interested in a doco style piece that moves at a steadier pace and teases the threads apart more.

Andrew :

05 May 2012 10:47:51pm

So apparently it qualifies as a big idea when the same panellists who say it is "a fantasy that secular people can recognise the true natural law to the same degree as people who recognise the grace of Christ" and who only half jokingly claim it may not be possible to be both catholic and American at the same time, go on to decry the role of religious sectarianism in the middle east. And then say that the organisation that can fix this should be, um, the church.

Let's just rephrase that: these people are saying that the way to redress religious sectarianism - in Islamic countries! - is with greater church involvement. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm not exaggerating here - listen to the last five minutes of the discussion, I'm just quoting nearly verbatim. Seriously, this qualifies as big ideas?The discussion is not even internally coherent, let alone any thought that it might bear any relationship to anything outside the religious bubble. Why they think that ideas this poorly thought through qualify them to have any more say than anyone else in the composition of the english house of lords is beyond me; nor why anyone other than them would think it a good idea for religious elders like themselves to be guaranteed seats there.

At least they were honest about wanting power, because I'm sure they all realise there has, er, never been any problem in history with religious groups using the power of the state to enforce their beliefs among those who don't share them. None. Nice to know what we're up against.

Martin Snigg :

08 May 2012 1:51:56pm

Andrew it's unfortunate those comments of Milbank went without clarification or introduction.

(Perhaps Scott Stephens could do a series on: "The most influential event in Catholic theology of the twentieth century was the appearance of Henri De Lubac's Surnaturel in 1946 " ? http://www.udallas.edu/!virtualroot!/Resources/132/mansini.pdf http://www.thomisme.org/images/stories/cessario-rowlandnv2005.pdf )

Nova et Vetera - Communio

Aristotle - Plato

Aquinas - Bonaventure

Schools - Fathers

Dominic - Francis

Aeternis Patris/Humani Generis - Surnaturel/Nouvelle Theologie

As an intro one of Edward Feser's essays would be perfect. His book The Last Superstition was hailed by Sir Anthony Kenny:

"The publisher’s blurb tells us that this book has been widely hailed as the strongest argument ever made against the New Atheists. Having read and reviewed quite a number of other similar books, I concur with this judgment." http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/kenny-on-tls-in-tls.html

And it would go some way to explaining what Milbank was saying and how he might be rather partisan. And what Etienne Gilson means here:

"The metaphysical structure of reality does not change. ‘Perennis philosophia’ is not an honorary title for any particular form of philosophical thinking, but a necessary designation of philosophy itself, almost a tautology. That which is philosophical is also perennial in its own right. …Metaphysics remains the knowledge of the first principle, and of all the rest in the light of that principle. Thus grounded on existence, as on the most universal object of intellect, it is its permanent duty to order and to regulate an ever wider area of scientific knowledge, and to judge ever more complex problems of human conduct; it is its never-ended task to keep the old sciences in their natural limits, to assign their places, and their limits, to new sciences; last, not least, to keep all human activities, however changing their circumstances, under the sway of the same reason by which alone man remains the judge of his own works, and, after God, the master of his own destiny.."

Chris A :

16 Aug 2012 7:38:08am

There are some great ideas here, but there is also the irrational and unsupported claim that these ideas belong exclusively to a particular branch of superstition: Christianity. Ideas of fairness and consideration of others are human ideas that come from our heritage of our evolution as a tribal species.

Throughout human existence there have been many dominating power structures from simple totalitarianism, to religion and capitalism, and the argument is made here that there will always be a power structure of some sort (fair enough, that's probably true), so it might as well be Christianity; or perhaps 'We (Christianity) had better get in first when there is an opportunity, and then hold the ground'. This idea is used to argue for the imposition of a particular branch of superstition, Christianity, on society through government, at least in Britain, anyway.

But what of those people who don't follow that particular branch of superstition, or any superstition at all? Are they expected to just accept that imposition, or are they to be forced to pretend that they do, as has occurred in Christendom over most of the last 2000 years, and other superstitions throughout human existence?